First, I don't watch the NBA and haven't for several years. My issue is not who or who may not be teh better player and/or supporting cast. My thoughts are that it appears to me that it makes a whole lot more sense to have a PG that looks to the other four first as opposed to later. Now, would I want that PG to also be able to create for himself and be effective doing so...absolutely who wouldn't? PJ can't create for himself Mason can. Would I prefer for Mason to do what PJ does in running an offense without turnovers and still be able to score when needed? Yes, I would prefer he do that over being the primary scorer and the other four be secondary. The issue isn't that Mason's scoring amount was what made Kansas good, but that he was capable (as were many on that team ) of scoring on his own when things broke down and he had a lot of talent with him on a given night. I'm strictly looking at the theory...absent any particular ballplayers. I also admit the rules ENHANCE (can't guard on the perimeter, reduced shot clock, 3 pt shot) scoring PGs than years ago and lean more favorable than they did years ago. Still, I want a PG that involves teh others, but capable of making the individual play when needed...secondary.
That is my preference, but as you know...I'm older and perhaps biased in my understandings...